Can "salvation", be "forfeit"?

[craig_on_fire]

One of the problems we have is that we generally have a very low view of salvation. Its merely about us getting to heaven. That's not a very full understanding of what salvation is...

 

[savedbygrace57]

ormly

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ormly
God places man's will over His sovereignty.

Where is this taught ? Sounds like man made religon

 

[nobdysfool]

It comes under the category of "wishful thinking" and "whistling past the graveyard".

See here.

 

[AndOne]

Then it is that your religion is a fatalistic religion. One can never know he is saved.

How is one who doesn't know if he is saved or not part of a fatalistic religion?

The statement just doesn't make much sense to me and I'm not sure I see the relevance of it to my discussion with BEN JOHNSON.

 

[Ormly]

You're making a joke right? Playing a devil's advocate role or something?

Either that or I just walked into a horror movie.

Read my lips: God places man's will over His sovereignty.

Throughout the Bible God's words are peppered in that state: "If man will".

Its not arguable.

 

[Ormly]

You Calvinists can't see the rees for the forest.

You all confuse God's unalterable plan for man in Himself and His alterable sovereignty that says "if man will, then I will". "If he will open the door I will come in and sup with him and he with Me.". . . . God never beats down the door of a man's heart. What He will do often is make him willing to be willing.

 

[Ormly]

One of the problems we have is that we generally have a very low view of salvation. Its merely about us getting to heaven. That's not a very full understanding of what salvation is...

Its about time somebody caught on.

 

[AndOne]

What He will do often is make him willing to be willing.

I would say we agree with this statement. The question you have to ask yourself is what happens when he doesn't do this? What happens when he doesn't "make someone willing to be willing."

 

[Ormly]

I would say we agree with this statement. The question you have to ask yourself is what happens when he doesn't do this? What happens when he doesn't "make someone willing to be willing."

Why do I have to ask myself that question? It doesn't concern me and is irrevelant. If a person isn't willing, he isn't willing. God tried to affect Pharaoh's will. He gave up. In fact, God knew beforehand that Pharaoh would never yeild. Thats why he hardened his heart and used him in His "unalterable plan". Had it all set up before Pharaoh was born.

 

[AndOne]

Why do I have to ask myself that question? It doesn't concern me and is irrevelant. If a person isn't willing, he isn't willing. God tried to affect Pharaoh's will. He gave up. In fact, God knew beforehand that Pharaoh would never yeild. Thats why he hardened his heart and used him in His "unalterable plan". Had it all set up before Pharaoh was born.

You are the one who made the statement that God makes a person "willing to be willing." Yet you contradict yourself when you say God couldn't affect Pharaoh's will. It may not concern you enough to ask yourself the question - but it is very relevant regardless. Otherwise you are living with a very obvious contradiction.

 

[savedbygrace57]

ormly staement

Read my lips: God places man's will over His sovereignty.

Throughout the Bible God's words are peppered in that state: "If man will".

Its not arguable.

As we can see ormly even speaks against the greatest human being ever look at his words..

lk 22:

Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

matt 6:

10Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

James even says the thinking that is now being presented is a sin..

James 4:

13Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:

14Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
15For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.
16But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil. 17Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Thinking that places mans will over the consideration of the divine will who is supreme , is evil boasting says james. It should not charaterize men in general thinking and most assuredly men who profess faith in Christ, and so in light of that, james says therefore

What is therefore mean ? In light of the immediate proceeding verses 13-16

For a person to think contrary it is sin..

We should be able to realize a tree by its fruit , and that means the fruit of their understanding..

matt 7:

15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them

 

[nobdysfool]

You Calvinists can't see the rees for the forest.

You all confuse God's unalterable plan for man in Himself and His alterable sovereignty that says "if man will, then I will". "If he will open the door I will come in and sup with him and he with Me.". . . . God never beats down the door of a man's heart. What He will do often is make him willing to be willing.

Rees? Aren't they in "orests?"

I don't go looking for "rees". and you're quite wrong about Calvinists. I think we see things a lot more clearly than you free will worshipers.

 

[Ben johnson]

Why is it that you view that statement as meaning eternal torture in fire? (or insert any other favorite alternative form of similar)

Because apart from God, there is no other place.

We "escape" from the darkness...and we can be again TAKEN by that darkness IN THIS LIFE if we turn away from HIS LIGHT/LIFE.

This still by no means makes God the eternal torturer of those slaves if that transpires...even though they may very well end up much worse for the wear in this present world.

Your view of "sinful men having their SINS cast into Hell, but they'll waltz into Heaven", is beyond the scope of this thread. Would it be all right if we started a new thread?

 

[Ben johnson]

No I didn't stop too soon. It is just that you continue to see those verses from the viewpoint of being able to lose your salvation.

If you understood what I was saying you would understand those verses in a different light.

In verse 9 the "and live" is literally "shall be living". It is talking about living the spiritual life.


In other words it is better to be under the control of the Spirit (filled with the Spirit) so we might live our spiritual life than be under the control of the flesh and not fulfill God's plan and hence have to get our backsides whacked by God.

There are many who accept the idea of "backslidden-SAVED". Obviously I don't. If we are not "under the Spirit's control", then we are goats, and not sheep.

In verse 25 you should have tried underlining this part.

"See that you do not refuse Him who is speaking; for if those did not escape who refused an earthly warner, much less shall WE escape who turn away from God.

Do you know what it is you won't escape? Read verses 7 - 12 in context. The writer is not talking about the lake of fire he is talking about discipline. We won't escape discipline Ben.

"SHALL we not much rather BE subject to the (discipline of) Father of spirits, and live?" Is there any way that "live", doesn't mean "eternally"?

There are two types of hardship we endure for discipline. The first type is where we have the resources and the grace to endure. This type of suffering is for the Christian who is moving along the right path and it is designed to strengthen and purify the faith they have. The second type is for the Christian who is refusing to listen to the Word and it is not bearable. The reason it is not bearable is because:

How can one be "Christian", and refuse God's word?

1. the person is not utilising the word they already know (faith) and
2. because the Lord does not give them the grace to endure the hardship.

It is specifically designed not to be bearable because God wants to bring that person to their knees (humble him).

But "humbling", is a choice; James and Peter both say so...

But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." Jm.4:6[/quote}RIGHT --- but if one does NOT choose humbleness, but chooses SIN, God has no grace for that...

...such a person is a "goat", not a "sheep"...
[quote[It is better to humble onself because that is done in the privacy of one's own soul. It is a matter between God and the believer. But if God has to force humility on a believer then it will not be private. Others will see their shame.

Most people refuse to humble themselves before God. That's why there are so few believers...

For the believer who refuses to listen to God it becomes a double whammy. Not only do they not enjoy the blessings the Lord has placed in Christ their humiliation becomes a public affair.

Publicly, the world accepts (and encourages) such refusal. If a "believer" refuses to listen to God, and continues to refuse, he/she isn't a believer.

There is no such thing as "sinningly-saved", or "backslidden-saved", or "not-following-God-SAVED".

 

[Ben johnson]

I think Calvinists wouldn't adhere to the statement "Backslidden, but still saved" - particularly if "walking in sin" refers to continual willfull unrepentent sinning. We would say that such a person was never saved to begin with.

I pray that you're right about most Calvinists.

In this case, there would be insufficient disagreement between us to argue; for we both would see the man who IS not saved, and it wouldn't matter whether he WAS or not; we would lead Him to Christ.

You would say "To Christ", I would say "Back to Christ"; but when he returns, we all three would win.

 

[heymikey80]

God places man's will over His sovereignty. See it from that perspective and the bible will read differently and more easily.

You're making a joke right? Playing a devil's advocate role or something?

Either that or I just walked into a horror movie.

Funny, isn't it.

I would say we agree with this statement. The question you have to ask yourself is what happens when he doesn't do this? What happens when he doesn't "make someone willing to be willing."

Why do I have to ask myself that question? It doesn't concern me and is irrevelant.

A refusal to consider what you just said. You just said God forces someone's will to will differently. To make someone -- to compel someone to will differently is directing their wills against their wills.

Have you become what you oppose?

If a person isn't willing, he isn't willing.

Really? Then how is it you said "God can make someone willing to be willing"?

God tried to affect Pharaoh's will. He gave up. In fact, God knew beforehand that Pharaoh would never yeild. Thats why he hardened his heart and used him in His "unalterable plan". Had it all set up before Pharaoh was born.

So then it does not depend on God who has mercy but on the man who wills or the man who runs.

 

[frumanchu]

God places man's will over His sovereignty. See it from that perspective and the bible will read differently and more easily.

I simply cannot approach the Bible with a preconception that so clearly contradicts Scripture itself. I'm not interested in reading it "differently and more easily." I'm interested in understanding it. You would do well to pursue that too and shed these vain preconceptions that cause you to twist Scripture into a deformed idol of your own making.

 

[Ormly]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ormly
God places man's will over His sovereignty. See it from that perspective and the bible will read differently and more easily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sawdust
You're making a joke right? Playing a devil's advocate role or something?

Either that or I just walked into a horror movie.

Funny, isn't it.

What's so funny?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Behe's Boy
I would say we agree with this statement. The question you have to ask yourself is what happens when he doesn't do this? What happens when he doesn't "make someone willing to be willing."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ormly
Why do I have to ask myself that question? It doesn't concern me and is irrelevant.

A refusal to consider what you just said. You just said God forces someone's will to will differently. To make someone -- to compel someone to will differently is directing their wills against their wills.

I said no such thing. Is this going to be about lying now??? Putting words into someone’s mouth to make them say contradictory things??? If you need someone to explain what it means by God ordering a man's steps, yer in bigger trouble than I thought. If you are that slow in your understanding what more I can add won’t help your situation.

Have you become what you oppose?

No but you are becoming more clear as to what you are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ormly
If a person isn't willing, he isn't willing.

Really? Then how is it you said "God can make someone willing to be willing"?

God can do anything he wants except violate His own Character however, He is after something that only man’s freewill can give Him, i.e., love. You really don’t want to argue with that, do you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ormly
God tried to affect Pharaoh's will. He gave up. In fact, God knew beforehand that Pharaoh would never yeild. Thats why he hardened his heart and used him in His "unalterable plan". Had it all set up before Pharaoh was born.

So then it does not depend on God who has mercy but on the man who wills or the man who runs.

Spell it out. What doesn’t depend on God who has mercy, etc. etc. or whatever else you are trying to ask? You might try understanding what I said. I put it in BOLD TEXT so reading it will be easy.
[/quote]

 

[Ormly]

I simply cannot approach the Bible with a preconception that so clearly contradicts Scripture itself. I'm not interested in reading it "differently and more easily." I'm interested in understanding it. You would do well to pursue that too and shed these vain preconceptions that cause you to twist Scripture into a deformed idol of your own making.

Then don't approach it then. Perhaps you can show where I violated your sensibilities.

 

[frumanchu]

Then don't approach it then. Perhaps you can show where I violated your sensibilities.

You can start here.

Again, I will not approach Scripture with a preconception that Scripture itself contradicts, which is precisely what you advocate. You may be comfortable with reading the Bible through the dark shades of anthropocentric philosophy, but I am not.

Once justified, surely glorified. NOBODY is able to snatch them from His grasp.